[TOareaFan]

While I cannot provide a proof that there were actual job losses due to inadequate transit, it is equally difficult to prove that such losses did not occur. If a start-up company chooses to set the shop elsewhere and not in Toronto, the transit concerns being one of the reasons, that company will not show in any stats of lost jobs. But the opportunities that company could bring, are getting lost anyway.

Therefore, I believe that the general theory stands ... until proven otherwise.

If I understand you correctly, the basis for the "we are losing jobs because of poor transit/commutes" theory is that you can't prove it wrong so it must be right? You must, then, also believe in alien's visiting earth....after all no one has proven it hasn't happened?

I actually see jobs and employment growing around the GTA, there may have been some opportunity cost job losses but, in general, employment and employment activity are increasing despite our troubled transit and commute times.

Now, just because I don't buy the "we are losing jobs" argument does not mean that I don't think we have to fix the issue...it just means that I think that this specific argument is without merit. As someone else mentioned, it may be a contributing factor in where in the GTA jobs will locate (I think it is a factor, for example, in the growth in the downtown office market even though non rental costs are lower elsewhere....because companies want to locate their offices in one node that everyone in the GTA can get to) but I don't "feel" like we are losing jobs to other jurisdictions/areas.

I would still love to hear a theory on which jobs (types or specifics) that people feel are so commute time sensitive that we are losing them to other places and which places those are.

 

[drum118]

While I cannot provide a proof that there were actual job losses due to inadequate transit, it is equally difficult to prove that such losses did not occur. If a start-up company chooses to set the shop elsewhere and not in Toronto, the transit concerns being one of the reasons, that company will not show in any stats of lost jobs. But the opportunities that company could bring, are getting lost anyway.

Therefore, I believe that the general theory stands ... until proven otherwise.

There is no proof that lack of transit has caused company to closed their doors or relocate elsewhere.

Taxes, wages, competition, greed and technology are the main reason for job lost.

Look at the type of business that exist 100, 50, 25, and 15 years ago and you will see business that either don't exist or are a shell of what they were at one time.

Buildings were built using steel at one and now use concrete or precast to the point steel fabricators close their doors due to lack of work. This inter cause steel mills to close their door as there wasn't enough of a market for it as well you could buy steel off shore cheaper.

The car industries reduce its workforce by using technology that could be done faster and cheaper than human.

The Toronto waterfront house industries that have moved to the 905 or elsewhere because of taxes and the increase of land value.

A number of company's who moved to the 905 or parts of the 416 found there was a lack of personnel since people were unwilling to travel that far or require a car to get there. The same thing happen when company's moved from the 905 to the 416.

At the end of the day, transit play very little in job lost or creation.

How far a person travel to work is either by chose or on their field of work which they have no chose over. Cost of living and owning/renting play a big part in commute travel.

The way business work these days, you have no idea if you will live a mile or 2 away today or 50 miles next year as the market dictates that as well company/shareholder greed. You have a choice to relocate where the company has relocated to, but at what cost. You have to look at your family first to see what impact it will have on them, your life style, your family and so on. Also can you find another position that pays the same as your company if you decide not to work for them because of the commute or relocation?

I have change jobs because I refused to travel the distance or deal with traffic.

My fear has been from day one when Metrolinx was being born, was the leap frogging of the greenbelt by GO Transit to help create urban sprawl elsewhere, where things could be cheaper to own or rent.

Bulk of the funding is to help GO and the blind fold thinking that we need to invest more in local transit to help to deal with the gridlock, but also urban use.

I have put people out of work and close doors since it was the only way to go as there was no market out there and competition was cut throat. Not fun laying off people or closing doors.

 

[spider]

Has it been factored into all these dollar figures that actual construction of all these projects will cost double the estimates and take twice as long as scheduled to build? As an example the BRT project on Hwy 7 in Markham has been underway for what seems to be years with little noticeable progress and indescribable traffic congestion.

 

[Rainforest]

If I understand you correctly, the basis for the "we are losing jobs because of poor transit/commutes" theory is that you can't prove it wrong so it must be right? You must, then, also believe in alien's visiting earth....after all no one has proven it hasn't happened?

Doesn't cut it. There is no general theory suggesting that aliens must exist. On the contrary, there are logical reasons to expect that jobs and transit are related.

 

[Rainforest]

The way business work these days, you have no idea if you will live a mile or 2 away today or 50 miles next year as the market dictates that as well company/shareholder greed. You have a choice to relocate where the company has relocated to, but at what cost. You have to look at your family first to see what impact it will have on them, your life style, your family and so on. Also can you find another position that pays the same as your company if you decide not to work for them because of the commute or relocation?

I have change jobs because I refused to travel the distance or deal with traffic.

That's the thing. I personally had to turn down some promising opportunities because my commute would be too long, and instead took a job that is located closer.

I realize that my skills are not that unique and no company will relocate just because they can't hire me. However, when either people with unique skills turn down positions, or people with average skills start turning them down en masse, that might affect the company's prospects.

 

[RocketAppliances]

Glen Murray talks transit revenue tools with Spacing

http://spacing.ca/toronto/2013/06/04/lorinc-glen-murray-talks-transit-revenue-tools-with-spacing/

 

[W. K. Lis]

Increasing or adding to the gasoline tax is not a good source for transit funding. From The Star, at this link:

Why North Carolina wants to tax hybrid, electric car owners

Some things are hard to believe. Like this one: North Carolina wants to tax hybrid and electric car owners.

Lawmakers in the state are considering a tax on drivers of energy-efficient cars: $50 a year for a hybrid and $100 for an electric car. Very simply put, state politicans say it is a way to make up for the revenue lost when drivers buy less gasoline. The gasoline tax funds highways in the state.

This tax could raise to about $1.5 million each year.

(The state's Senate will consider the measure but hasn’t acted yet.)

Here is how The Daily Beast explains it:

"The state relies on gas taxes to fund highway construction. But gas consumption has been falling, in part because the American auto fleet has been getting more efficient. In effect, people who drive cars that get 50 miles per gallon are contributing only half as much to the upkeep of roads as people who drive cars that get 25 miles per gallon."

Of course, online commentators have had a field day and they have raised vital questions: Should drivers of fuel-efficient gasoline vehicles be charged more because they use less gasoline? Or those who use lots of gas be offered a rebate?

Most commentators have angrily called it the “backward thinking attitude” of the N.C. government. Others have said they will “never” pay the tax.

To be fair, N.C. isn’t the only state embroiled in this.

Similar legislation that may tax hybrid cars is pending in Texas, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Arizona. Washington state added a $100 registration fee in February for owners of all-electric cars.

The bottomline: That’s the thank you drivers get a) for trying to save money on gasoline, b) for reducing carbon emissions.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Paris transit plans eclipse Toronto

Read More: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/in-paris-a-different-vision-for-subways/article12901813/

.....

In an epic project dubbed “Pharaonic†for its scale, Paris is soon to start digging 200 kilometres of subway tunnels that will finally give the city’s sprawling suburbs proper transit. The work is being driven by the national government, on the premise that the economic vitality of the capital region is crucial to the country as a whole.

- Visions differ dramatically in Toronto and Paris. The French capital’s subway system will be more than six times as long as Toronto’s once both cities are finished their currently planned transit lines. But the French project offers food for thought to the Toronto area as it ponders its own plans.

- Although digging has not begun, the first line is to open by 2020, and all the new routes are scheduled to be operational a decade later. It’s an ambitious goal and the group is planning to borrow against future revenue streams to get the tunnel-boring machines into the ground as quickly as possible.

- The project will be funded through four main revenue sources, all applied in the Paris area only. They include an increase in the tax on office space, a levy on every resident in the region, a contribution from the state-owned public transit operator and a user fee paid by the company that will operate the new system. Together these will generate 800 to 900-million euros annually. This will be used to pay down the debt. “Within 30 years, we’re done,†said Mr. Missoffe, brushing his hands briskly together.

- In Ontario, where Metrolinx has proposed a sweeping transit plan for the Toronto area, remarkably similar numbers are being floated. The provincial agency says it will cost about $34-billion for its “next-wave†network of subways, light rail and bus rapid transit. But it remains to be seen the extent to which Metrolinx will borrow to speed up construction. John Howe, vice-president of investment strategy and project evaluation with Metrolinx, said they can’t make any such decisions until they know the extent and stability of annual funding.

- Although the city’s transit service is updating its subway signalling to allow computer control of the trains, there will continue to be an operator in the cab. And for the foreseeable future, trains will continue to have a second person on board to man the doors. Management would like to phase out that role, but the union has indicated it will oppose such a change on safety grounds. The subway system in Toronto is also tiny compared to Paris.

- In Toronto, Metrolinx is determined to build a network system that connects suburbs to each other. This is a break from older transit thinking, which is usually based on a radial system that funnels people into the downtown. In the same way, the new Paris plan links together residents in outlying areas, most of whom now drive. Residents of Clichy-sous-Bois, the suburb with high unemployment that spawned widespread rioting in 2005, will no longer have to go almost all the way into Paris before changing trains and returning to job options at the international airport, only a few kilometres from their homes.

- Andy Byford, the head of the TTC, has said he will go to Ottawa in person to advocate for funding, and Metrolinx CEO Bruce McCuaig, speaking after the agency’s board meeting this week, reiterated that the federal government needs to step up and pay 30 per cent of transit capital costs. One day earlier, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne called for federal transportation support, “not only to unlock gridlock, but to invest in jobs and economic prosperity in our time.â€

.....

 

[Adjei]

The way the Europeans think is different from the thinking we find in this city, while Paris has one of the top transit systems in the world, they still find the need to continually expand. Meanwhile the transit system here is garbage, we sit here and argue and nothing. When there is a plan to at least get the trllansit agenda forward, we have some who will fight tooth and nail to make sure nothing gets done and everything is derailed.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The way the Europeans think is different from the thinking we find in this city, while Paris has one of the top transit systems in the world, they still find the need to continually expand. Meanwhile the transit system here is garbage, we sit here and argue and nothing. When there is a plan to at least get the trllansit agenda forward, we have some who will fight tooth and nail to make sure nothing gets done and everything is derailed.

Toronto... what a shame!

 

[M II A II R II K]

Maybe there is merit in borrowing against projected revenues to speed up construction times, which would also speed up the payback.

 

[kEiThZ]

I have issues with the "Look to Europe" approach used by most Transit advocates.

It doesn't work. Because the contexts are vastly different. To begin with, governing structures are different and that's what results in national government involvement. Not in the least that in places like the UK there are no provincial governments. County governments answer to the national government. Even in France, the regions are far closer to county governments in our context than provincial governments. Next, in Europe, you'll often find that the major city and national capital coincide. Hence, investing in London, Paris, Brussels, Vienna, Rome, etc. has other significance.

My biggest beef though with the argument is that in Canada, the people who push the argument (local and provincial pols) do so, simply because they aren't willing to make the hard decisions to raise taxes and pay for infrastructure. So they dither and differ to the feds. The federal government, under the Chretien, Martin and Harper governments have substantially reduced tax rates. There is absolutely nothing stopping from the provinces from taking up the tax "room" vacated by the feds to fund their infrastructure needs and ambitions.

The Feds (both Liberal and Conservative) have rightfully resisted the push to be involved in transit building, other than some token efforts. I say rightfully, because I am mindful of the political mess any major transit infrastructure program would become. Imagine for example the national reaction if significant federal dollars got tied up with corrupt construction practices of public works in Montreal. The Feds should be focusing on infrastructure of national significance: high speed rail, national electric smart grid, national fibre network, etc. They should not be in the business of building subway, when provincial and municipal governments have the means to do so (testicular fortitude being another matter altogether).

Anybody who expects the Feds to change their position is dreaming. It won't be much different if Trudeau gets in either. The token transit funding will be higher. But I wouldn't expect the kind of massive investment that some mayors and premiers believe the Feds should offer. That would require the Feds to raise taxes or dramatically cut back on a whole host of other priorities. Why would any federal politician sign up for that deal, knowing full well that the provinces could easily fund their own infrastructure needs by raising taxes themselves?

 

[canmark]

Rob Ford has given City Manager Joe Pennachetti 2 weeks to come with transit funding options so he can build subways, subways, subways. Meanwhile, due to today's signal problems at Bloor, it took me over 2 hours to get from Don Mills to Union Station. Yay, subways?

Mayor Rob Ford has given City Manager Joe Pennachetti the task of trying to find options for funding an extension on the Bloor-Danforth line.

The special report is to be submitted for the next council meeting on July 16.

“I truly believe subways can truly impact Toronto’s landscape and economy,” said Ford. “They offer the highest capacities, the fastest speeds and greatest connectivity.”

But when pressed after his announcement Wednesday afternoon, the mayor offered no immediate answers as to how it would be funded.

“Mr. Pennachetti will find ways to finance the subway — that’s what the report’s going to do.”

He said the report will provide the council with the information and options to adopt a clear and informed position.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Actually GO has the highest capacities on already existing GO corridors.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I have issues with the "Look to Europe" approach used by most Transit advocates.

It doesn't work. Because the contexts are vastly different. To begin with, governing structures are different and that's what results in national government involvement. Not in the least that in places like the UK there are no provincial governments. County governments answer to the national government. Even in France, the regions are far closer to county governments in our context than provincial governments. Next, in Europe, you'll often find that the major city and national capital coincide. Hence, investing in London, Paris, Brussels, Vienna, Rome, etc. has other significance.

My biggest beef though with the argument is that in Canada, the people who push the argument (local and provincial pols) do so, simply because they aren't willing to make the hard decisions to raise taxes and pay for infrastructure. So they dither and differ to the feds. The federal government, under the Chretien, Martin and Harper governments have substantially reduced tax rates. There is absolutely nothing stopping from the provinces from taking up the tax "room" vacated by the feds to fund their infrastructure needs and ambitions.

The Feds (both Liberal and Conservative) have rightfully resisted the push to be involved in transit building, other than some token efforts. I say rightfully, because I am mindful of the political mess any major transit infrastructure program would become. Imagine for example the national reaction if significant federal dollars got tied up with corrupt construction practices of public works in Montreal. The Feds should be focusing on infrastructure of national significance: high speed rail, national electric smart grid, national fibre network, etc. They should not be in the business of building subway, when provincial and municipal governments have the means to do so (testicular fortitude being another matter altogether).

Anybody who expects the Feds to change their position is dreaming. It won't be much different if Trudeau gets in either. The token transit funding will be higher. But I wouldn't expect the kind of massive investment that some mayors and premiers believe the Feds should offer. That would require the Feds to raise taxes or dramatically cut back on a whole host of other priorities. Why would any federal politician sign up for that deal, knowing full well that the provinces could easily fund their own infrastructure needs by raising taxes themselves?

Frankly, it looks poorly on Toronto that you even have to outline this. You admit the system is broken and the Feds because of political backlash are afraid to invest in their two largest cities. It says a lot about this city, this country that we all said was the best 2 days ago, and none of it is good.